Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Yahoo! Inc. v. Dkal
Claim
Number: FA0402000238650
Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by David M. Kelly, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P., 1300 I Street NW, Washington, DC
20005-3315. Respondent is Dkal (“Respondent”), Crcega 329 4
planta, Barcelona, Barcelona 08037.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <yahooautos.com>, registered with Capital
Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known
conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 20, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 23, 2004.
On
February 23, 2004, Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <yahooautos.com> is registered
with Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Capital Networks
Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC
registration agreement
and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
February 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of March 17, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via
e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@yahooautos.com by
e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
March 24, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its
responsibility under
Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the "Rules") "to
employ reasonably available means calculated
to achieve actual notice to Respondent."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules,
the Forum's
Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems
applicable, without the benefit of any Response
from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <yahooautos.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <yahooautos.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <yahooautos.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
is a global Internet communications, media, and commerce company that delivers
a branded network of comprehensive searching,
directory, information, communication,
and shopping services, and other online activities and features to hundreds of
millions of
Internet users. Complainant
offers a wide variety of services using the YAHOO! mark in conjunction with a
descriptive name for its services.
Theses services include YAHOO! Autos, which provides users with a wide
variety of auto-related services and information (e.g., auto
buying, selling,
research, insurance, and repairs).
Complainant holds several registrations for the YAHOO! mark with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. Nos.
2,403,227 and
2,040,222 (registered on November 14, 2000 and February 25, 1997,
respectively).
Respondent
registered the <yahooautos.com> domain name on April 30,
2003. Respondent’s domain name resolves
to a website that is an automobile-related, web directory website provided by
Dark Blue Affiliate
Network.
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted
in accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's
undisputed representations
pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such
inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three
elements to obtain an order that a domain
name should be cancelled or
transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has
rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and
is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has
established rights in the mark through registration with the USPTO. See
Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that
they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption.
Respondent’s <yahooautos.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the domain
name fully incorporates the YAHOO! mark with the exception
of the exclamation
point and the addition of the generic or descriptive term “auto.” The omission of the exclamation point and
the addition of the generic or descriptive term “auto” are insufficient to
distinguish the
domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown
Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) finding that
punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name
and mark; see also Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Rest. Commentary,
D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) finding the domain name <chichis.com> to
be identical to Complainant’s CHI-CHI’S mark, despite
the omission of the
apostrophe and hyphen from the mark; see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic School, FA 146930
(Nat. Arb. Forum April 11, 2003) finding that Respondent’s domain names, which incorporated Complainant’s entire mark and
merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and
“driver improvement”
did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming
a claim of confusing similarity; see
also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) finding confusing
similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a
generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business.
Furthermore, the
addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining
whether the <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant; see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)
finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not
affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical
or confusingly similar.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel
presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <yahooautos.com>
domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no legitimate
interest in the domain names; see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)
finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which
could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name.
Nothing in the
record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <yahooautos.com>
domain name. Therefore, the Panel
finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent
Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply; see also Charles
Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) finding
no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of
Complainant;
(2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the
domain
name in question.
Furthermore,
Respondent’s <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark and is used to offer goods and services that
compete with Complainant. Respondent’s
competitive use of the infringing domain name does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002)
finding that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a
pay-per-click
search engine, in competition with Complainant, was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services; see
also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 23, 2003) holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s
mark to market products that
compete with Complainant’s goods does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use
of the infringing domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii) because
Respondent and Complainant both offer
auto-related services. See Gen. Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 26, 2001) finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant
registered and used a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s
PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site; see also EBAY, Inc. v.
MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) finding that Respondent registered
and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where Respondent
has
used the domain name to promote competing auction sites.
Furthermore,
Respondent’s commercial use a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark is evidence of bad faith use and
registration pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA
123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv) because
Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet
users to its commercial website;
see
also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002)
finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's
mark when
the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails
to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent
is using the
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) finding that the disputed domain name was registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s
registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to
attract Internet
users to its fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous
marks and likeness.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <yahooautos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated:
April 5, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/521.html